In 2020, the federal government flooded the economy with liquidity to avoid a complete economic collapse during the Covid-19 pandemic. As part of that effort, the government encouraged the application and expedited granting of Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans to companies. At the time (despite numerous questions about what companies and organizations were eligible under the program) speed, not compliance was the watchword. Accordingly, in 2020, many private clubs were encouraged to apply for PPP loans. Despite the emphasis in 2020 on speed and liquidity, the government is now increasing their investigation and prosecution of companies who may have received or used PPP loans improperly.
In 2020, the federal government flooded the economy with liquidity to avoid a complete economic collapse during the Covid-19 pandemic. As part of that effort, the government encouraged the application and expedited granting of Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans to companies. At the time (despite numerous questions about what companies and organizations were eligible under the program) speed, not compliance was the watchword. Accordingly, in 2020, many private clubs were encouraged by aggressive lenders to apply for PPP loans. Despite the emphasis in 2020 on speed and liquidity, the government is now increasing their investigation and prosecution of companies who may have received or used PPP loans improperly.
In modern business, nearly every employee and executive has access to, and uses a computer on a regular basis. In line with this, employers expect that work computers will be used solely for work, and that work e-mail accounts are property of the employer, not the individual employee or officer. However, a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal found that something more is required: without a clear policy in place prohibiting the use of an employer’s e-mail accounts for personal purposes and informing employees that their work e-mail accounts are subject to review, an employer may be prohibited from doing so, and evidence collected in that manner may be inadmissible if a dispute arises. What’s more, your lawyer may be prevented from representing you in any disputes with the employee whose e-mail account you accessed if these proper protections are not in place.
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- Understanding Deceptive California Statement of Information Scams
- Closing of Pre-Hearing Discovery Loopholes in Arbitration
- International Enforcement of U.S. Trademarks: Simplicity for Complexity’s Sake
- Last Minute Court Decision Delays Enforcement of CPRA Regulations
- Trademark Infringement Is No Joking Matter: Supreme Court Reevaluates Parody Fair Use Exception and First Amendment’s Place in Trademark Infringement
- Department of Justice Expands PPP Investigations from Brazen Fraud to More Technical Violations, including Investigation into Private Clubs
- Department of Justice Expands PPP Investigations from Brazen Fraud to More Technical Violations, including Investigation into Private Clubs
- Court of Appeal Places Stricter Requirements on Employee E-Mail Access Policies
- Preparing For The CPRA Part 3: New Contractual Requirements For Data Transfers
- Preparing For The CPRA Part 2: Changes To Data Retention Requirements
Popular Categories
- (19)
- (23)
- (15)
- (3)
- (3)
- (2)
- (2)
- (3)
- (2)
- (1)
- (5)
- (4)
- (5)
- (4)
- (1)
- (3)
- (3)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Sean M. Anderson
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Reece C. Bennett
- Eduardo A. Carvajal
- Michele L. Collender
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Christopher M. Francis
- Runmin (Ivy) Gao
- Evan J. Gautier
- Carol A. Gefis
- Amber S. Healy
- Edward C. Ho
- John E. James
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Neil M. Katsuyama
- Joseph K. Lee
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Jon Ustundag
- Brian M. Wheeler